The treatise of Lorenzo Valla on the Donation of ConstantineValla, Lorenzo
History
The treatise of Lorenzo Valla on the Donation of Constantine
Valla, Lorenzo
Church and state -- Holy Roman Empire; Constitutum Constantini; Popes -- Temporal power -- Early works to 1800
Estopped from defending the Donation, since it never existed and, if
it had existed, it would now have expired from lapse of time, our
adversaries take refuge in another kind of defense; figuratively
speaking, the city being given up for lost, they betake themselves to
their citadel,—which forthwith they are constrained by lack of provisions
to surrender. “The Roman church,” they say, “is entitled by prescription
to what it possesses.” Why then does it lay claim to that, the greater
part, to which it has no title by prescription, and to which others are
entitled by prescription; unless others cannot act toward it as it can
act toward them?
The Roman church has title by prescription! Why then does it so often
take care to have the Emperors confirm its right? Why does it vaunt
the Donation, and its confirmation by the Caesars? If this alone is
sufficient, you seriously weaken it by not at the same time keeping
silent about the other title [by prescription]. Why don’t you keep silent
about that other? Obviously because this is not sufficient.
The Roman church has prescribed! And how can it have entered a
prescription where no title is established but only possession through
bad faith? Or if you deny that the possession was a case of bad faith, at
least you cannot deny that the faith [in the Donation] was stupid. Or, in
a matter of such importance and notoriety, ought ignorance of fact and
of law to be excused? Of fact, because Constantine did not make a grant
of Rome and the provinces; a fact of which a man of the common people
might well be ignorant, but not the supreme pontiff. Of law, because
they could not be granted; which any Christian ought to know. And so,
will stupid credulity give you a right to that which, had you been more
conscientious, would never have been yours? Well! Now, at least, after
I have shown that you held possession through ignorance and stupidity,
do you not lose that right, if it was such? and what ignorance unhappily
brought you, does not knowledge happily take away again? and does not
the property revert from the illegal to the legal master, perchance even
with interest? But if you continue to keep possession in the future, your
ignorance is henceforth changed into malice aforethought and into deceit,
and you become a fraudulent holder.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account